Thien-Thi Nguyen writes:
> Maybe the simplest way is to completely separate code generation from
> compilation. This also gives you an opportunity to do compilation in
> two places (of the code that generates the code, and of the generated
> code). So your Makefile would look like:
>
> gen: ge
() mark.d.wit...@gmail.com
() Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:12:48 -0400
I can't see a way to do that without wrapping the whole set of
expressions in `begin', but that's what creates the problem I
described above. I can hack a solution for now but if anyone
knows a clean way to do it, that'd be
m...@markwitmer.com writes:
> I'm running into a problem creating custom languages that compile to
> Scheme. I have an example here of a simple compiler that takes any
> Scheme expression and generates code for creating a Guile module. If I
> compile a file using this language and reference the re
I'm running into a problem creating custom languages that compile to
Scheme. I have an example here of a simple compiler that takes any
Scheme expression and generates code for creating a Guile module. If I
compile a file using this language and reference the resulting module
from another one that
